Some people seem to "hate" getting shots towards smart targets

[Hi I'm Ray]

Originally Posted by Power Player

He just tried to make it into a system that he invented, which was silly. There is nothing wrong with hitting safe spots on the court, let's just not make it into more than it is.

But watch the AO final and see how many times players hit into the "danger zone" for example. You will be surprised.

As for drilling this stuff, instead of worrying about targets, I would suggest practicing down the line and crosscourt rallies with the right partner. It will greatly assist you in a match and you will hit the angles you want to hit easier.

I know if I just go crosscourt or dtl without an actual spot or target area, consistency of placement will get pretty random.
Because I was coached to keep my concentration on watching the ball and visualizing where the ball is going to go, I usually will pick out and visualize a spot, or the flight of the ball on passing shots. When I'm not concentrating & watching the ball my visualization & placement usually go too. Practicing for the targets makes the rest of the court much easier to place, imo.

I do appreciate any input or feedback you have.

[JW10S]

Originally Posted by Power Player

He just tried to make it into a system that he invented, which was silly. There is nothing wrong with hitting safe spots on the court, let's just not make it into more than it is.

But watch the AO final and see how many times players hit into the "danger zone" for example. You will be surprised.

As for drilling this stuff, instead of worrying about targets, I would suggest practicing down the line and crosscourt rallies with the right partner. It will greatly assist you in a match and you will hit the angles you want to hit easier.

Absolutely true. The problem with trying to trademark any system as being best paints one into a corner, you're stuck with it no matter what--which is why most fail miserably. The fact is the optimal target, whether it be for safety or a point ending shot, changes depending on where you are on the court, where your opponent is on the court, whether you are hitting CC, DTL or DTM, hitting slice, topspin or flat, whether the ball is high or low, where it landed on your side of the net, etc, etc, etc. The smartest target for a passing shot with your opponent at net or a rally ball with the opponent at the baseline will be very different. A target that makes your opponent run in one instance can leave you very vulnerable in another. To be good you have to do it all. Any system that would limit you so much is anything but smart. And I agree that 5236 has not made the important contribution to tennis that he seems to think he has.

[HSCoach]

Originally Posted by JW10S

Any system that would limit you so much is anything but smart.

Interesting? i have only read 2-3 pages of this very long thread, but already see a couple of comments like below. Doesn't seem the OP's intent is to limit from the little I've read so far except maybe that shorter middle zone?

Originally Posted by 5263

This system is not rigid at all and has acknowledged early on that there are exceptions for any rules, including these. The targets are an there for a default on where to direct any ball where you don't have a better idea;

[JW10S]

^^so, just how many accounts do you have...?

'where to direct ANY ball...'. That is the limiting factor. I won't just hit 'any' ball from anywhere on the court to specific spots just to satisfy some sophomoric 'system'. There are a lot of ways to effectively react to situations where 'you don't have a better idea' that are not dictated by set targets.

And this trend of picking apart one sentence of a post rather than commenting on the post as a whole shows a desperate, weak hand. Nice try though...well not really...

[bhupaes]

Hi JW10S, as I understand it, 5263 proposed smart targets as the default strategy, if one didn't have a reason to hit elsewhere. And as per my observation of ATP tennis, that's exactly what the pros seem to do. It's a reference that helps the player avoid putting the ball into the "avoid zone". Even that is not really prohibited if the situation warrants it. Whether 5263 "invented" this scheme is not of great interest to me, but he has certainly been extremely helpful to folks like myself struggling with strategy.

[Hi I'm Ray]

^^ Thats sort of how I see it. Nothing has to be followed like some rigid rule as some claim, same as with any other stragety.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by JW10S

Any system that would limit you so much is anything but smart.

Why do you think this concept is limiting? It merely provides some sensible, percentage target options for when trying to build a point - nobody has said (as far as I am aware) that the targets outlined are the only shots available. I've used a similar concept with some of our wheelchair players to good effect - it provides a good building block to use to create opportunities.

Cheers

[Greg G]

I guess this is how to practice for the smart targets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdopjW6STs

[JW10S]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

Hi JW10S, as I understand it, 5263 proposed smart targets as the default strategy, if one didn't have a reason to hit elsewhere. And as per my observation of ATP tennis, that's exactly what the pros seem to do. It's a reference that helps the player avoid putting the ball into the "avoid zone". Even that is not really prohibited if the situation warrants it. Whether 5263 "invented" this scheme is not of great interest to me, but he has certainly been extremely helpful to folks like myself struggling with strategy.

I went back and read the first page in his original thread on the subject--there it does not seem he is talking about a 'default' strategy. So apparently he has backed way off of his original concepts.

Some things good players have in their bag are what I refer to as 'automatic' shots--their default shots. Since there is not always time to decide and set up to hit where you want or how you want everytime players will have an automatic go to shot that will keep them in the point but not put them on the defensive. Then when they have time, opened up the court, acheived good court position, whatever, they pull the trigger. But these automatic shots are situational and not always to the same places.

I've seen point-by-point chartings of patterns of shots of Djokovic, Federer, Murray and Nadal and they each have their own unique patterns of play incorporating automatic shots to ultimately allow them to take control of the point based on their particular strengths and favorite shots. They don't use the same targets, their automatic shots differ. And their automatic forehands differ from their automatic backhands. They will hit deeper to one side of the court and shorter to the other, or wider to one side and more centered to the other based on their strengths and weaknesses and the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents. In many ways it's like chess--how many shots will it take me to get my opponent over there, or to make him hit to me here. It's fascinating when you study it.

I'm surprised someone would need a reference to tell them that dropping the ball into the middle of your opponent's court is something you'd probably wouldn't want to do all that often. When I was 12 yrs old (long time ago) my coach would use tape to mark out a square in the middle of the court, if you hit the ball in it you lost the point. He didn't use a fancy term like 'avoid zone'. But it was a good tool, one I use in my coaching now, hit in the square in the middle of the court, lose the point, but it's certainly nothing groundbreaking.

[bhupaes]

Originally Posted by JW10S

I went back and read the first page in his original thread on the subject--there it does not seem he is talking about a 'default' strategy. So apparently he has backed way off of his original concepts.

I thought that 5263 was saying that one can and should it to areas other than the smart targets - specifically, in post #2:

"These 3 cones form a triangle shaped target zone, one on the deuce then another on the ad side. These 2 triangle targets will work well for most all shots from dtl to well cross court. There will definitely be several exceptions we can use from using these targets, but these 2 targets will work well for a vast majority of rally and mid-short ball attacks. Defining smart exceptions will be great to discuss in this thread."

Also, the above language implies they are defaults and not absolutes, IMO.

Some things good players have in their bag are what I refer to as 'automatic' shots--their default shots. Since there is not always time to decide and set up to hit where you want or how you want everytime players will have an automatic go to shot that will keep them in the point but not put them on the defensive. Then when they have time, opened up the court, acheived good court position, whatever, they pull the trigger. But these automatic shots are situational and not always to the same places.

I've seen point-by-point chartings of patterns of shots of Djokovic, Federer, Murray and Nadal and they each have their own unique patterns of play incorporating automatic shots to ultimately allow them to take control of the point based on their particular strengths and favorite shots. They don't use the same targets, their automatic shots differ. And their automatic forehands differ from their automatic backhands. They will hit deeper to one side of the court and shorter to the other, or wider to one side and more centered to the other based on their strengths and weaknesses and the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents. In many ways it's like chess--how many shots will it take me to get my opponent over there, or to make him hit to me here. It's fascinating when you study it.

This makes sense, of course. The top players have no doubt refined their strategies to a very fine degree, and execute a number of variations based on their opponent and situation. And they will have to do so almost automatically, because of the speed of the game. High speed grandmaster chess at its best! However, we have to start somewhere...

I'm surprised someone would need a reference to tell them that dropping the ball into the middle of your opponent's court is something you'd probably wouldn't want to do all that often. When I was 12 yrs old (long time ago) my coach would use tape to mark out a square in the middle of the court, if you hit the ball in it you lost the point. He didn't use a fancy term like 'avoid zone'. But it was a good tool, one I use in my coaching now, hit in the square in the middle of the court, lose the point, but it's certainly nothing groundbreaking.

IMO, what seems obvious to you and other established coaches/players definitely needs to be spelled out clearly to those not in the know! I am just now, after so many years of hitting, beginning to understand why hitting in the middle - even fairly hard - is geometrically disadvantageous compared to hitting to one of the smart targets. It is a point well worth stating on a board such as this, again IMO.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by JW10S

I went back and read the first page in his original thread on the subject--there it does not seem he is talking about a 'default' strategy. So apparently he has backed way off of his original concepts.

Nope, the original premise was born out of a thought/premise that the best players didn't hit nearly as close to the lines (especially regarding depth) as most recreational players think they do. 5263 (and i'm not trying to speak for him - but he can't be here to defend his concepts) took that idea and used it to create the triangular target theory that you see in the original thread, which give you a target gate which has margin for error, but can still create an opportunity if the ball is well struck, regardless of your position or intention to go cross or DTL (and based on a trading ball - not necessarily when attacking or creating).

Whether you like the idea/theory/concept is another thing, and whether you think it has been done before is entirely another, the valid point is that many recreational players may not have considered this as a potential pattern and therefore it may be useful to many.

As I have said, I have used to concept with world class wheelchair players, to very good effect.

Cheers

[dman72]

I heard Brad Gilbert tell me to aim within 3 feet of the lines on either side on "Sportskool". It's the same idea, just modified with more emphasis on NOT trying to hit deep.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Why do you think this concept is limiting? It merely provides some sensible, percentage target options for when trying to build a point - nobody has said (as far as I am aware) that the targets outlined are the only shots available. I've used a similar concept with some of our wheelchair players to good effect - it provides a good building block to use to create opportunities.

Cheers

Exactly, it is a reference or a guide. It can definitely help develop good hitting patterns that can be effective and also consistent.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by JW10S

I went back and read the first page in his original thread on the subject--there it does not seem he is talking about a 'default' strategy. So apparently he has backed way off of his original concepts.

Some things good players have in their bag are what I refer to as 'automatic' shots--their default shots. Since there is not always time to decide and set up to hit where you want or how you want everytime players will have an automatic go to shot that will keep them in the point but not put them on the defensive. Then when they have time, opened up the court, acheived good court position, whatever, they pull the trigger. But these automatic shots are situational and not always to the same places.

I've seen point-by-point chartings of patterns of shots of Djokovic, Federer, Murray and Nadal and they each have their own unique patterns of play incorporating automatic shots to ultimately allow them to take control of the point based on their particular strengths and favorite shots. They don't use the same targets, their automatic shots differ. And their automatic forehands differ from their automatic backhands. They will hit deeper to one side of the court and shorter to the other, or wider to one side and more centered to the other based on their strengths and weaknesses and the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents. In many ways it's like chess--how many shots will it take me to get my opponent over there, or to make him hit to me here. It's fascinating when you study it.

I'm surprised someone would need a reference to tell them that dropping the ball into the middle of your opponent's court is something you'd probably wouldn't want to do all that often. When I was 12 yrs old (long time ago) my coach would use tape to mark out a square in the middle of the court, if you hit the ball in it you lost the point. He didn't use a fancy term like 'avoid zone'. But it was a good tool, one I use in my coaching now, hit in the square in the middle of the court, lose the point, but it's certainly nothing groundbreaking.

There is more to it than just don't hit in the middle of the court. Last year there was a shot chart from the AO that showed some of the top matches shot locations. There were not many very deep, the majority were very similar to the smart targets that 5263 suggests.

[tlm]

Here is the chart I am talking about.

http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-p3...t-Djokovic.jpg

[JW10S]

Originally Posted by tlm

Here is the chart I am talking about.

http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-p3...t-Djokovic.jpg

I'm not going to count them all but I don't know if the majority of the balls do land in the targets described--but if you say so. It just looks to me like a guy trying to move his opponent around--so of course fewer balls are in the middle of the court--although there appears to be more shots hit to the duece side of the court. But you're not going to move anyone much if you're not hitting the ball side to side--which is obvious. BTW, which of those balls depict a return of serve, a volley, a lob, an approach shot, a passing shot, etc? Where in the court was Novak when he hit those shots? Which of those are sliced or topspun? Just marking where balls land and then making conclusions based on that alone is not really useful.

When I chart matches I do them point by point. I mark where on the court the serve (or return of serve) landed and then mark 2,3,4 etc for where the subsequent balls landed. I also record if the shot is volley, pass, approach, etc. You can gleen far more useful info doing that. You can really see what's going on.

Finally, years ago I warmed up Jimmy Connors for an exhibition/senior match. He hits hard and flat and had an almost uncanny ability that day to consistently hit within a couple feet of the baseline without missing long. I'm sure it wasn't just by chance. Pro players, as well as good juniors and college players, do indeed practice hitting to deep targets because there are going to be situations where they'll need to be able to do so to win the point. So should you...

[sureshs]

WTA players consistently hit deep.

[WildVolley]

Originally Posted by sureshs

WTA players consistently hit deep.

This is generally true, and probably has something to do with hitting less topspin. It may be that this is a conscious strategy to not hit as much topspin or it may be that they're not getting the racket head speed or spin because of different form.

[Relinquis]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ray

I don't play much singles games at all, mostly its doubles games or rallying singles. It seems like after putting away a few sharp angles at smart targets AFTER setting up for it during rallies, some opponents start trying to hit "hard" shots into the corners off soft feeds when starting a rally. They also start trying to hit feeds faster into the corners or start with deep moonballs to the BH. Pretty damn weak, IMO. I've been running into this a lot lately. I just hit easy feeds to the center and I'm hitting down the middle off feeds.

Is anyone else running into this sort of thing?

sometimes. i find that discussing what i want to do while rallying helps in these cases, e.g. "let's get the ball in a rally before we try angles, spins or other shots, is that ok?" Some players are more intuitive and don't let their ego get into practice, but a lot of players let their ego mess things.

i'll often ask my practice partner what it is he wants to work on, he'll say "forehand cross court" or something and we'll rally that way a few times and then work on something else. I think that helps to get them in the rhythm of not trying to crush your drop feeding.

[HSCoach]

Originally Posted by tlm

There is more to it than just don't hit in the middle of the court. Last year there was a shot chart from the AO that showed some of the top matches shot locations. There were not many very deep, the majority were very similar to the smart targets

TLM, just for kicks I pulled up some Jimmy Connors matches and counted in clips from 3 different matches; since Jimmy is quoted to be uncanny for hitting within a couple of feet of the baseline and is from an era where that was maybe even more possible with the slower shots. If anyone is going to do that well, it would Connors right?

I tended to be more liberal than the couple of feet that was claimed for him, and counted anything that seemed to be inside 4 ft. Even with that liberal counting, he hit less than 15% of his strokes that close the the baseline and keeping it in play. If I had actually used a couple of feet, that would have been cut in half and it would have been less than 8%. I think 2 of them gave him forced errors and no winners came from the deep shots. A couple of other interesting percentages too.

Over twice that 15% number landed very close to the service line and all the clean winners were nearer to the service line. It was so predictable that I quit having to pause after each shot to mark. I could just sit and count until the rare ball near the baseline, then pause and mark the numbers. Last thing of note was that he also had more misses than balls near the baseline as well, and that is without counting shots that missed wildly off the frame or point enders. I didn't even include those in the count. Very telling information derived from the poster boy for uncanny, deep hitting.